Christopher G. – Make $142 Million with Paint

Posted: February 10, 2014 in Uncategorized

Thinking about Holt’s argument of socio-economic reversal after last class, I began to search how much people have paid for paintings. I found an article showing that in November 2013, the most expensive painting was sold for $142 million. Those in the lower class immediately laugh at how much someone is willing to pay for a painting which they can most likely photo copy or recreate. However, it is an ‘elite item’ so those with who do not hold an elite status will not understand the true value as they have probably never been educated about fine arts such as paintings. The high class is shown purchasing something for a high price even though when you pull it all apart it is just paint and an art canvas. It leaves the lower class very confused, especially when paintings that look like a two year old smudge paint all over a piece of paper are selling for millions of dollars. Are these paintings really worth the money being paid for them, or simply a waste of disposable income?

  1. cs341blog says:—not-trading-but-investment/1/18151.html

    The article I have attached from Business Today identifies the sale of art from an investment perspective. Not only are expensive art pieces purchased as decorative pieces for owners to display in their homes and galleries, but many of these pieces of high end art are purchased as investments, based on the assumption that they will increase in value. This provides interesting insight into the art industry as it provides an alternative reasoning for the purchase of fine art. Not only is art purchased as by consumers for recreational reasons, it is also often purchased as an investment. However, as identified in the article, this type of investment is clearly geared specifically towards the elitist class given the high cost of many pieces and the fickle nature of the industry which makes it extremely difficult to predict future value.

    Chris James

  2. cs341blog says:

    Matt Douglas

    I like how the article says that the painting was part of a record-breaking auction that grossed $691,583,000, the highest total for an auction sale in art market history. It is crazy that so much can be spent on something that is aesthetically pleasing but not necessarily beneficial. I think that Holt and Schor would be opposed to spending that kind money on a painting when one could have spent that money in so many other ways. I think that art has the mystique around it because somebody can make millions for just painting something, but at the same time only in limited contexts do people actually make that kind of money from painting

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s